On 04.04.2014 09:48, Inki Dae wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa at samsung.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 4:29 PM >> To: Inki Dae; 'Tomasz Figa'; airlied at linux.ie; dri- >> devel at lists.freedesktop.org; 'Marek Szyprowski'; >> devicetree at vger.kernel.org; Grant Likely; Rob Herring >> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] exynos-drm-next >> >> On 04.04.2014 07:34, Inki Dae wrote: >>> Hi Tomasz, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:tomasz.figa at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 2:00 PM >>>> To: inki.dae at samsung.com; airlied at linux.ie; dri- >>>> devel at lists.freedesktop.org >>>> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] exynos-drm-next >>>> >>>> Hi Inki, >>>> >>>> On 03.04.2014 19:34, inki.dae at samsung.com wrote: >>>>> Hi Dave, >>>>> Sorry for late. >>>>> This pull request includes MIPI-DSI driver, two panel drivers, >>>>> super device support, and relevant dt bindings. >>>>> >>>>> Summaries: >>>>> - Add MIPI-DSI Driver, and dt bindigs >>>>> - Add S6E8AA0 MIPI-DSI based panel drivers, and dt bindings >>>>> - Add LD9040 parallel panel driver >>>>> . this driver is placed in drivers/gpu/drm/panel, and it seems >>>>> to be used for exynos drm as of now, >>>>> - Add super device support, and dt bindings >>>>> . this patch resolves the probe order issue to sub drivers >>>>> without specific lists >>>> >>>> I don't think the DT bindings have been Acked by DT maintainers, >>>> which is necessary to merge them. >>>> >>>> Also I believe more discussion is needed on this, but I didn't have >>>> time to comment on this series yet. Please hold off with merging the >>>> supernode series yet. >>> >>> I sent a email about review request to you but I didn't get any answer >>> from you. >> >> It's been just three days ago and I just didn't find time yet to review > > No, the email was just ping. My original RFC patch series had been posted > March 3, about 1 month ago, And for my official patch series, eight days > ago. > So the email I sent three days ago was just a ping that I requested for you > to review the patch series.
As I said, it was not even posted to samsung-soc, the central ML for Samsung SoC related patches, as mandated by MAINTAINERS file. I learned about its presence just after your ping. >> them. I would like to be able to review all the patches straight after >> them being posted, but unfortunately that's not the only thing I have to >> do. >> > > So I think there was no any comments from you for a long time. > >> Anyway, a common practice in open source world is to let the patches wait >> on the mailing lists for two weeks for people to find some time to review >> them and only then apply. There might be people that don't work full time >> on this area, but still would be interested to do a review in some free >> time. >> >> Also, neither version of this series have been posted to linux-samsung-soc >> mailing list, which is also a key to have a broader review. Note that this >> ML is listed in MAINTAINERS file for all kernel files with "exynos" in >> name. >> >> ARM/S5P EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES >> M: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com> >> L: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org (moderated for > non-subscribers) >> L: linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org (moderated for non-subscribers) >> S: Maintained >> F: arch/arm/mach-s5p*/ >> F: arch/arm/mach-exynos*/ >> N: exynos >> >> >>> And I think super node concept was already accepted, and relevant >>> codes, component framework, has already been merged to mainline. And >>> Linux staging next has already such dt bindings. Please see imx dts >> files. >> >> Yes, they are, but for other platforms not this particular instance. >> >> Any new DT bindings introduced are needed to have an ACK from one of DT >> maintainers to be merged, unless you can't get any reply from any of them >> for a longer time, usually 3 weeks from posting the series to be applied. > > So should I wait for more times? > Since this series is not a dependency for any other patches queued for this release and it doesn't add any new functionality, I don't think there is any need to hurry with it. >> >> Of course standard pinging rules apply, so you should ping DT maintainers >> first before applying such series. > > > The email I sent to you three days ago was that. Unfortunately I'm not a DT maintainer, so I don't qualify here. You can see list of DT maintainers in MAINTAINERS file: OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS M: Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org> M: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> M: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> M: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree at hellion.org.uk> M: Kumar Gala <galak at codeaurora.org> L: devicetree at vger.kernel.org S: Maintained F: Documentation/devicetree/ F: arch/*/boot/dts/ F: include/dt-bindings/ Best regards, Tomasz
